At the point of implementing a JIT compiler that isn't Java licenced, especially if this somehow stands in the way of Oracle making as much money as they want.
(e.g. you're into mobile and they want to licence JavaFX) It helps your case somewhat if you have a large patent portfolio with which to counter-claim. On 9 September 2010 20:31, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes. :) What I am fishing for is, at what point between the OpenJDK > and an Android stack would lawyers have a case? > > On Sep 9, 9:19 pm, Wayne Fay <[email protected]> wrote: > > > And to continue the thought experiment; suppose I join Jan's > > > interesting PL/2 project and decides add another emitter to javac, one > > > that outputs Dalvik compliant byte-code? > > > > You mean add another emitter to pl2c, right? ;-) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- Kevin Wright mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
